I think the easiest way would to have Ultron start nuking cities. That'll be much more dangerous and threatening than "U KILD MUH FWEND!!"

I really liked the plot in the Avengers: EMH cartoon when Ultron got SHIELD's security codes from Maria Hill's mind, then hacked into their global network and fired off ALL of the worlds nukes all at once. Something like that could be cool to see in the movie. Only this time, some of the nukes actually hit their targets.

I really liked the plot in the Avengers: EMH cartoon when Ultron got SHIELD's security codes from Maria Hill's mind, then hacked into their global network and fired off ALL of the worlds nukes all at once. Something like that could be cool to see in the movie. Only this time, some of the nukes actually hit their targets.

I was watching Desolation of Smaug a few days ago and marveling at how epic Legolas is in combat. Hopefully Hawkeye ups his game, because the elves were beasts with their bows and arrows. I'm not saying that Hawkeye wasn't awesome with his arrows in Avengers, because he absolutely was, but I can't wait to see what new moves and arrows he has up his sleeve.

Well, it's up to Marvel in the end, and look what happened to the major death that Joss Whedon had happen in the Avengers, he came back in the show.

I'm hoping every time a character dies they don't always come back. It would be better if you decide to kill someone off to leave them be. It cheapens death to bring someone back all the time. It's why I stopped reading comics.

I think the easiest way would to have Ultron start nuking cities. That'll be much more dangerous and threatening than "U KILD MUH FWEND!!"

I doubt that will happen. Whedon said that he wanted Avengers 2 to be less epic and darker and more personal. Unless he's changed his mind since he said that, I think we can expect the stakes of the film to be less global in nature than the first film.

And honestly, I'd prefer that. Sequel escalation almost never results in anything good (I'm looking at The Dark Knight Rises here), and I think it's especially bad for the superhero genre because it perpetuates the myth that epic action should be the primary focus when making a superhero film. And when that's your main focus, you get a shallow, bloated, and somewhat pretentious film like Man of Steel. I don't want Avengers 2 to be like Man of Steel. I ****ing hated Man of Steel.

I doubt that will happen. Whedon said that he wanted Avengers 2 to be less epic and darker and more personal. Unless he's changed his mind since he said that, I think we can expect the stakes of the film to be less global in nature than the first film.

It's true, shortly after Avengers, Whedon said that a hypothetical sequel wouldn't try to top the Avengers, and that it would be darker and more personal. But he has also said that this movie is about the Avengers place in the world. So while things may be scaled back in some sense, there will still be a global scale to the action. Whether that leads to nuking cities or not, I certainly can't say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whedon

It's very much a global Avengers film. A lot of the movie has to do with their place not just in America, but the world.

It's true, shortly after Avengers, Whedon said that a hypothetical sequel wouldn't try to top the Avengers, and that it would be darker and more personal. But he has also said that this movie is about the Avengers place in the world. So while things may be scaled back in some sense, there will still be a global scale to the action. Whether that leads to nuking cities or not, I certainly can't say.

But all that means for certain is that the film probably won't take place primarily in the United States and that the story will deal, on some level, with the international community's reaction to the Avengers' existence. Doesn't speak to the scale of the action, or even necessarily the stakes of the conflict. Ultron doesn't have to threaten the entire world all at once for the film to have global themes.

And, really, when I said global I mean "If we lose then the entire planet will be conquered/destroyed." I doubt that's going to be the stakes of the film. I mean, maybe long term if Ultron goes unopposed for a long time, but I don't think the end of life on Earth will be the immediate consequence of Ultron winning. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the impression I get and that's what I'm hoping for.

If the fate of the entire world does literally hang in the balance, I expect it to resemble the doomsday scenario from the season 2 finale of Buffy The Vampire Slayer: The potential apocalypse exists, narratively, to create a deadline, an explicit incentive to deal with the villain now instead of waiting him out, and a clear standard of winning and losing, but the real drive of the story is the personal toll the villain has taken on the heroes.

I doubt that will happen. Whedon said that he wanted Avengers 2 to be less epic and darker and more personal. Unless he's changed his mind since he said that, I think we can expect the stakes of the film to be less global in nature than the first film.

And honestly, I'd prefer that. Sequel escalation almost never results in anything good (I'm looking at The Dark Knight Rises here), and I think it's especially bad for the superhero genre because it perpetuates the myth that epic action should be the primary focus when making a superhero film. And when that's your main focus, you get a shallow, bloated, and somewhat pretentious film like Man of Steel. I don't want Avengers 2 to be like Man of Steel. I ****ing hated Man of Steel.

Ultron nuking cities isn't dark? The threat HAS to be really big just to justify the Avengers coming together. Plus, Ultron's plans are almost always large in scale.

The threat HAS to be really big just to justify the Avengers coming together.

Maybe? You can have an Avengers-worthy threat without necessarily having a villain nuking cities or nearly destroying the world. There's more than one way you can play that. Especially if Ultron goes after The Avengers instead of The Avengers going after Ultron.

I doubt that will happen. Whedon said that he wanted Avengers 2 to be less epic and darker and more personal. Unless he's changed his mind since he said that, I think we can expect the stakes of the film to be less global in nature than the first film.

And honestly, I'd prefer that. Sequel escalation almost never results in anything good (I'm looking at The Dark Knight Rises here), and I think it's especially bad for the superhero genre because it perpetuates the myth that epic action should be the primary focus when making a superhero film. And when that's your main focus, you get a shallow, bloated, and somewhat pretentious film like Man of Steel. I don't want Avengers 2 to be like Man of Steel. I ****ing hated Man of Steel.

I don't know man, it seems sort of selfish that the only reason the Avengers would take an enemy seriously if the enemy killed one of their own. Killing a character has also become such a cheap way of trying to get the audience to feel bad, let's do something different.

"You must be joking."
"Yes, because I'm known as the funny one."
"There's nothing funny in thinking you can defeat a superior foe with a few trick arrows and a dirty look."
"You're right. I would need something more than that. Like say...

I know that Renner wasn't too happy about his role (or lack thereof) in The Avengers, so here's hoping that Hawkeye's screentime will be boost even though they're adding two new members (or villains?) to the sequel. I think a solo movie with HE and BW would be a great idea, but right now Marvel is so booked that I don't see this happening anytime soon, or at least until Phase 4.

__________________"I know I'm asking a lot, but the price of freedom is high, it always has been, and it's a price I'm willing to pay. And if I'm the only one, then so be it. But I'm willing to bet I'm not." - Captain America

I don't see why they couldn't do a smaller budget movie with just Hawkeye and BW. Focus it on more the espionage aspect with a human villain. Give it a holiday release and they could make decent profit. Not every movie needs to aim for a billion dollar box office.